[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion

[Huw Lloyd]

Thanks Michael,

I would also make some suppositions here with respect to underlying
understandings that are applied irrespective of the mode of evidence
gathering being used. In particular, the nature of quality. I would suggest
that the quality you see in your own discourse analysis work is a finer and
more nuanced quality than that presented by someone not familiar with
quality-as-state or quality-as-system. This would be tantamount to saying
that there is a deeper theory you are also using, irrespective of whether
it is explicitly articulated, that would guide you in enriching the
otherwise more flatter work. In other words, the methods may not
sufficiently identify what you are looking for, that irrespective of your
articulating it, you are able to perceive rigorous aspects that are
potentially not catered for by the mode of presentation.

In a quirky way, one could say that this is not being faithful to the
methods, to the degree that you are then using 'invisible' guidance (from
the perspective of someone only familiar with the method in question). To
this I would say that there are deeper understanding that _could_ be
articulated and (re-) imported into the methods (where they are decidedly
flat). Similar circumstances could be applied to CHAT, with the caveat that
this is a corpus which contains deeper levels which haven't really been
touched on here.

Does this seem like an accurate depiction, Michael?

Best,
Huw

On 19 December 2017 at 01:38, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw,
> I am not sure whether what I am doing is a natural science trajectory. When
> we look at people's lives---much more detailed than in the vignette I
> provide---then it all has to do with what makes sense, and the inquiry into
> sense, common and otherwise, and the foundations for what we do, then it is
> not a natural science project.
>
> When you ask people like Zeeman, who uses mathematical formulations to
> model things like the transition from peace to war, and others using
> mathematical formulations to model job change, then the founder of
> catastrophe theory (and that math) would disagree. The project is an
> epistemological one, and Thom uses the theory (which is not a theory in the
> mathematical-scientific sense he will agree) to classify different
> situations in which new forms are generated independent of the question
> whether those situations are normally treated by the natural sciences, the
> social sciences, or the humanities.
>
> I would see my own endeavor more in this line of thought. In my work, I use
> whatever tool the problem requires. Sometimes it is a mathematical tool,
> such as when I used fuzzy logic to model the assessment examiners make of
> pilot performance. In other cases, I analyze language and human relations.
> And I have publications in fields that where people from the humanities
> would publish (like Semiotica).
>
> But you are right. Different people do different things. I think this is
> coming out in the discussion. David focuses on understanding Vygotsky and
> tries figuring out what he meant (or so I thought); and he does apparently
> great work in translating Vygotsky for people who do not read Russian. I am
> interested in particular problems, like how people do what they do, and how
> they achieve what they achieve. When a theory doesn't help me (any more), I
> look elsewhere. This is how I overcame my adherence to different
> theoretical frameworks, which include neo-Piagetian (information
> processing) theory, radical and social constructivism, discourse analysis
> (forgets the body), etc. etc. The hardest is to put aside something that
> one has invested years to build up, like the grasp of a particular theory.
> I understand why many people are hanging onto the same theory----it is hard
> to spend another 5-7 years to build up ones grasp of a new theoretical
> framework and the body of the literature in the field.
>
> Maybe this helps (some) understand
>
> Michael
>
>
> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Applied Cognitive Science
> MacLaurin Building A567
> University of Victoria
> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>
> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can please
> > correct me if I am misrepresenting him:
> >
> > Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural science.
> In
> > this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are a
> > secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is
> > presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they
> > achieve what is claimed.
> >
> > Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does
> > actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research efforts.
> >
> > Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest
> > (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really relevant
> to
> > his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to the
> > trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other
> words,
> > his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is
> to
> > further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although a
> v.
> > strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which
> is
> > basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic.
> >
> > >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly relevant
> > to
> > the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this
> > (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it is
> > beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not
> that
> > something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists)
> > meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the
> > qualifications of a larger project) sufficient.
> >
> > My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it
> has
> > yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from
> > qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion)
> does
> > not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may
> argue
> > entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to such a
> > programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1).
> >
> > I hope this helps!
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not
> > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in
> > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its
> > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's.
> > >
> > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but
> > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond
> my
> > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of
> > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them
> in a
> > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their
> > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics
> and
> > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I
> > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern.
> > >
> > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse,
> > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an
> argument
> > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves
> > on
> > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved
> > aggressively
> > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not
> > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and
> it
> > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my
> > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's
> > remark
> > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break
> > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't
> > believe
> > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules
> as
> > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a
> > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules
> > and
> > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying
> Vygotsky
> > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the
> > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God.
> > Wolff-Michael
> > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved
> > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use
> > Vygotsky's
> > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern.
> > >
> > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > >
> > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
> > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
> > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
> > >
> > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
> > >
> > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Huw,
> > > >
> > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied
> mathematician, I
> > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of
> > quantity
> > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them)
> > where
> > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between
> two
> > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate
> > continuously,
> > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the
> > continued
> > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order
> > emerges
> > > > in the water movement.
> > > >
> > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses
> > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace
> > into
> > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments
> are
> > of
> > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a
> > stinking
> > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the
> > other
> > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how
> > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes
> > through
> > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows
> > this,
> > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change
> that
> > come
> > > > with continuous increases in some variable.
> > > >
> > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no
> > forces
> > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it,
> > including
> > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you
> > that
> > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system.
> > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in
> > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit =
> word-meaning),
> > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest
> level
> > of
> > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing
> the
> > > > whole world.
> > > >
> > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us
> > anywhere,
> > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the
> > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition,
> multiplication,
> > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists
> will
> > tell
> > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of
> substance.
> > You
> > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel
> > Henry
> > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the
> first,
> > > > originary body are invisible.
> > > >
> > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on
> the
> > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not
> > there
> > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is
> > convinced
> > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not
> > > > Marxist.
> > > >
> > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went
> so
> > far.
> > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the
> > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear
> > creations".
> > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of
> > facts,
> > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva,
> > 2010,
> > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as
> > untenable.
> > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the
> > right to
> > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --------------------
> > > > Applied Cognitive Science
> > > > MacLaurin Building A567
> > > > University of Victoria
> > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> > > >
> > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> > > > <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd <
> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels
> > use
> > > > of
> > > > > "leading activity".
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the
> focus
> > > > seems
> > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By
> > > > development
> > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not
> previously
> > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful
> > > > beyond
> > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of
> > one
> > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality
> > (not
> > > > a
> > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original
> > expression
> > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new
> > > > quality
> > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to
> > > > project
> > > > > a cause-effect model).
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate
> > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing
> > his/her
> > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a
> > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without
> > identifying
> > > > the
> > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I
> > think
> > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other
> than
> > what
> > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show
> > this
> > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of
> > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger
> > materialistically,
> > > > but
> > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how
> > this
> > > > can
> > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to
> certain
> > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do
> > not
> > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve
> > this
> > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also
> > within
> > > > the
> > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods
> > were
> > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case,
> > they
> > > > may
> > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that
> > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing
> > more
> > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a
> > teaching
> > > > > institution.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of
> affect
> > and
> > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed
> > external
> > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not
> > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be
> > > > maintained
> > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult).
> > Either
> > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from
> > the
> > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate
> it
> > --
> > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened
> concentration
> > to
> > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide
> > anecdotal
> > > > > examples if you want them).
> > > > >
> > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can
> be
> > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the
> > > > self-perpetuating
> > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the
> > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I
> take
> > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some
> > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as
> imputing
> > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of
> > that
> > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it
> is,
> > I
> > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this
> > concretely
> > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically
> > > > assumed
> > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that
> > perhaps
> > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to
> > observations is
> > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and
> > its
> > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from
> various
> > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis,
> environment-subject,
> > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your
> > ideas
> > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is
> whether
> > the
> > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Huw
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Andy,
> > > > > > Alfredo
> > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > > >
> > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43
> > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change:
> Issue
> > 4
> > > > > > article for discussion
> > > > > >
> > > > > > attached, Bill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > Andy Blunden
> > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote:
> > > > > > > hi Alfredo,
> > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is
> > > > Michael's
> > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available
> as
> > a
> > > > > free
> > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or
> > > > > purchase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Interested in this discussion.
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Bill Kerr
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a
> > selected
> > > > > > article
> > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by
> > > > > > Wolff-Michael
> > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental
> > > > Change?".
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access
> for
> > a
> > > > > brief
> > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a
> Vygotskian
> > > > > notion
> > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so
> > common
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in
> > > > Vygotsky's
> > > > > > >> writings.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and
> > > > critiques
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the
> article
> > > > > brings
> > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open
> > > > access
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the
> coming
> > > > days,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be
> > shy
> > > > > > bringing
> > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique
> opportunity
> > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may
> > live
> > > > on
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Alfredo
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>